How Tesla Got Away With Its Battery Ruse for Years : tech

[–] ch00f@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Not a Tesla apologist, but this article kind of contradicts itself.

They argue that Tesla is lying about vehicle range, but then saying that Tesla is guilty of normalizing building vehicles with oversized batteries which customers don't need (because they only drive 40 miles a day) which is putting a strain on the battery supply chain.

Wouldn't Tesla lying about range be them minimizing their impact on the battery supply chain?

And the rest of the article goes on to complain about the battery arms race which I agree with (anybody who can charge at home doesn't need more than 100 mile range for their second vehicle), but that's hardly Tesla's fault. On every thread discussing EVs for the past 10 years, there's always some petrolhead complaining that EVs aren't able to easily complete the 15 hour, 900 mile, road trip they apparently drive every week. The market wanted a replacement for gas cars, Tesla did what they could to meet that demand.

Also, the articles linked about Tesla lying about range mostly discuss how all EVs fall short of EPA range when tested by Car and Driver. That suggests the blame lies with EPA testing, and Car and Driver even has a suggestions on what to change about the EPA's methodology.

[–] Odusei@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (6 children)

Wouldn’t Tesla lying about range bee then minimizing their impact on the battery supply chain?

Not at all, they’re still stuffing their cars with lots of big batteries, and then lying about the range those batteries give.

load more comments (6 replies)

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] schmorpel@slrpnk.net 13 points 2 years ago

, and supply chains aren’t scaling anywhere near fast enough to put a 300-mile range EV in every driveway in time to slow climate change.

And if they were scaling we would just accelerate climate change even more. New cars don't slow climate change. Repair your old one, or take the bus, or use a bike.

[–] Hypx@kbin.social 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

@stopthatgirl7 Perhaps it’s time that people accepted that Toyota was right: We want a diversity of electrified vehicles. Hybrids, plug-in hybrids and fuel cell cars all have their role to play right now. It should not be a monoculture of BEVs.

[–] Pons_Aelius@kbin.social 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

No one is stopping any country or company from producing fuel cell cars. If Toyota is right, where are the fuel cell corollas?

I am not knocking fuel cell vehicles, I wish they were viable but after 20 years of R&D they still haven't solved the H2 storage problems, and it is starting to look like it will never be practical for a vehicle the form factor of a car.

[–] MJBrune@beehaw.org 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

They started selling fuel-cell cars last year. Both Toyota and Hyundai sell hydrogen-powered cars. https://www.hyundaiusa.com/us/en/vehicles/nexo and https://www.toyota.com/mirai/ So they do exist. They are actively on the road. You may purchase one at your convenience.

[–] YMS@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago

Last year? The Mirai went on sale in 2014, the Nexo in 2018. Just nobody buys them because there are no fueling stations, and there shouldn't be any for their horrible inefficiency anyway.

[–] Hypx@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago (5 children)

Where were BEVs just 15 years ago? These things do not happen all at once. Most arguments against fuel cell cars are outdated and from people stuck in the past.

[–] keeb420@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

the biggest hindrance to hydrogen is the cost to build a hydrogen station vs out in ev chargers. why would anyone build a hydrogen station when they could install many ev chargers for the same price. maybe trucking and busses, like greyhound not metro or school, could be a usecase for hydrogen going forward.

[–] Hypx@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago (15 children)

It's cheaper to install hydrogen stations than it is to build charging stations. That's because it cost 10x less to move hydrogen around compared to electricity.

https://www.brinknews.com/could-hydrogen-replace-the-need-for-an-electric-grid/

[–] keeb420@kbin.social 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Across all 111 planned new hydrogen fueling stations, an average hydrogen station has capacity of 1,240
kg/day (median capacity of 1,500 kg/day) and requires approximately $1.9 million in capital (median
capital cost of $1.9 million).

https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/21002-hydrogen-fueling-station-cost.pdf

Most commercial enterprises look to install level two charging stations, which run on 240-volt power and provide a compromise between power and cost. A level two electric vehicle charging station costs around $2,500 for a non public facing and $5,500 for a public facing dual-port station—it can charge two cars simultaneously in eight to 10 hours.

https://futureenergy.com/ev-charging/how-much-do-ev-charging-stations-cost/

As more drivers purchase plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs), there is a growing need for a network of electric
vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) to provide power to those vehicles. PEV drivers will primarily charge
their vehicles using residential EVSE, but there is also a need for non-residential EVSE in workplace, public,
and fleet settings. This report provides information about the costs associated with purchasing, installing,
and owning non-residential EVSE. Cost information is compiled from various studies around the country, as
well as input from EVSE owners, manufacturers, installers, and utilities. The cost of a single port EVSE unit
ranges from $300-$1,500 for Level 1, $400-$6,500 for Level 2, and $10,000-$40,000 for DC fast charging.
Installation costs vary greatly from site to site with a ballpark cost range of $0-$3,000 for Level 1, $600-
$12,700 for Level 2, and $4,000-$51,000 for DC fast charging.

https://afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publication/evse_cost_report_2015.pdf

or its cheaper to install ev chargers.

[–] Hypx@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

More stations more greater economies of scale. At some point this will be no more expensive than a gas station. Also, you have a much greater capacity per station compared to a charging station. It will pencil out to being cheaper than building the much greater number of charging stations. Not to mention maintenance. The cost of maintaining millions of charging stations will be a major challenge.

[–] keeb420@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

im no business major but even i can see its a no brainer to go with an 38 ev chargers vs 1 hydrogen station. and the same economies of scale will make it cheaper to build more ev stations cheaper. hydrogen may have a place, trucking and busses like greyhound might make sense for hydrogen but currently it makes no sense to build a hydrogen station for normal passenger vehicles.

[–] Hypx@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Until you realize that 1 hydrogen station can refuel hundreds of cars per day. Economies of scale are in hydrogen's favor. BEV advocates are simply lying about the facts.

[–] keeb420@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

and so can 38 ev charging stations.

[–] Hypx@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

At 38x time the land area and far greater power consumption. And it does not scale very well either. Double the number of stations and everything doubles in cost. Nor are you getting a full 400 miles if you are assuming fast charging. You're looking at only a 80% max charge in that situation. Meanwhile, with hydrogen, you just need bigger tanks to support multiple stations. Everyone is fully refueled after 5 minutes consistently. It is the same idea as natural gas refueling stations. Once costs drop due to increases production and economies of scale, the hydrogen stations easily wins this argument in a walk.

Again, BEV advocates are simply lying. They are just trying to defend their car purchase. It is completely at odds with economics and physics.

[–] keeb420@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

ev chargers can be installed in existing parking lots negating a lot of that space issues. however if a gas station wants to serve both gas and hydrogen theirs only so much room for the tanks needed underground. and if you want bigger tanks thats even less room for other tanks.

have fun waiting for hydrogen, the rest of us are gonna leave you behind.

[–] Hypx@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You will have to tear up all those parking spaces to put up chargers. Meanwhile, those gas stations already exist and it would just mean repurposing them for hydrogen.

Guys like you are just stuck in the past. You'll end up cheering on a dead end because you cannot conceive of progress in the car industry.

[–] keeb420@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

a trench a few feet deep vs digging deep enough to put a giant pressure vessel underground. which is harder? theres some work, sure, to install ev chargers but its much less, hince the price difference to install, to run copper wire in a conduit than it is to dig a hole for the pressure vessel to hold the hydrogen.

[–] Hypx@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

You'll have to do this millions of times and wire it all up. Cost is going to be north of $1 trillion for there to be enough of them.

And you're wrong about that: It is cheaper to move and store hydrogen than it is to build wires:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-hydrogen-cars-refuse-to-die-2bfd6295

You're repeating too much BEV propaganda. It is just more expensive and that is fact.

[–] keeb420@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

well when theres hydrogen stations around me ill admit i was wrong. til then i keep seeing more and more ev chargers. and they arent even at gas stations. and as we replace or renovate buildings itll be easier to add chargers. and yeah copper isnt cheap but you only need to run it once, vs have a truck keep resupplying you with hydrogen. and those truck drivers deserve a good wage. and then you need a gas station attendant, adding to the cost. and then theres is possible cleanup of soil contamination at said gas stations to even build a hydrogen pump. and then theres the fact it needs to be chilled and pressurized, again adding to the cost. vs electricity thats already there.

[–] Hypx@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Same story as those who doubted BEVs. Also the same story as those who doubted solar power. Same as wind power before that. The facts don’t change just because “my idea is already here.” The facts clearly state that it will be cheaper to go with hydrogen stations that charging stations. So it is only a matter of when it will happen.

And there’s no clean up problem. Hydrogen has no contamination issues. This is you just making stuff up.

[–] keeb420@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

gasoline and diesel do though. youre mixing a cost to do something once, make and run a copper line, to a recurring cost, buying and delivering hydrogen. hydrogens time for passenger vehicles has passed. they were supposed to be the bridge to evs. well we have evs now. we do not need a bridge anymore.

also if the 145,000+ gas stations went to hydrogen itd be $242,417,200,000. way more than itd cost to add ev chargers everywhere. and that is one pump. now if they wanted two or three or four...

[–] Hypx@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Hydrogen is not gasoline nor diesel. This is a ridiculous argument.

Hydrogen can be pipelined at 1/10 the cost of sending electricity via wires. If you actually paid attention to the conversation instead of spamming BEV propaganda, you’d notice that I said that already.

It will cost over a trillion dollars to put up enough charging stations for all cars. For hydrogen, it will be far less. Those are facts you cannot deny.

This is just BEV fanboyism run amok. The world will not head towards a BEV monoculture with zero alternatives. The fact that we’re even having this conversation shows how much brainwashing is going on. It is so extreme that it is evidence that BEVs are secretly in big trouble. Otherwise, why do BEV fans need to spam FUD and marketing propaganda like there is no tomorrow? It shows a type of insecurity that suggests BEV fans actually do not really believe their own claims.

[–] keeb420@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

and where do you think hydrogen pumps are gonna be installed? oh yeah, existing gas stations as that makes sense for the type of fuel it is which can very much have contamination issues. and how much will it take to run these hydrogen pipelines to these stations? cause they dont exist now. and that not even talking about producing hydrogen. we might get green hydrogen in the future but today the vast majority isnt. meanwhile theres plenty of electric wires already in place.

[–] Hypx@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You are replacing gas stations with hydrogen stations. You are removing contamination issues. And again, it is far cheaper to put hydrogen pipelines than wires. The economics will drive adoption. People will choose the cheaper option over the more expensive one. You are just advocating the status quo and insisting that nothing can change.

[–] keeb420@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

so youre suggesting its cheaper to run pipeline than it is to tie into the existing electrical grid?

and that not even going into hydrogen like to leak from any hole it can find so those pipeline have to be perfect all the time.

im not saying things cant change, just that weve already moved on from what hydrogen was meant to be. theres no point to use electricity to produce hydrogen, in the cleanest form, only to eventually turn it back into electricity. when we can just use electricity from the beginning cutting out a lot of losses.

[–] Hypx@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I'm not suggesting. I brought sources indication that this, in fact, is the case.

Most of your counterarguments are just fearmongering. As if engineers haven't already looked at these issues before making such claims. In reality, it is the cheaper idea by far. BEV fanatics are just spamming propaganda in order to deny these facts. It is frankly out-of-control and it is a sign of desperation.

[–] keeb420@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Its cheaper to install a DC fast charger than it is a mile of pipeline. And that's not even including the pumps themselves.

average pipeline costs are $155,000 per inch-mile, varying
regionally.
– The average cost was $94,000 per inch-mile in the 2011 Study.

https://ingaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/21527.pdf

[–] Hypx@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You get significantly more capacity with a pipeline than with wires. You are just obfuscating the facts.

[–] keeb420@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Still doesn't make it any cheaper to get the pipeline from who knows where to the station. Much less building the station. And is shell and BP and whomever else gonna run their own pipelines or are they gonna be shared?

[–] Hypx@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Where does the electricity for charging stations come from? BEV fans never answer this question honestly. They just pretend it will just be green electricity. In reality, this is an extremely hard problem. By the time you figure a way to guarantee green electricity, you'd realize that you're making hydrogen for energy storage already. So in truth, the solution will involve hydrogen no matter what.

[–] keeb420@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Wind, solar, hydro, or hell even coal as it would still be cleaner than an ice vehicle. And no we don't need to store electric as hydrogen, we can store electricity as electricity it's called a battery.

[–] Hypx@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago

You're not comparing to a ICE car. You're comparing it to a hydrogen car. A BEV running on dirty energy is going to be much worse than a hydrogen car on green energy.

Storing it in a battery would be incredibly expensive at scale. The point of hydrogen is that you can store large quantities of it.

load more comments (14 replies)

[–] Pons_Aelius@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Where were BEVs just 15 years ago?

Where are fuel cells today?

I read my first story about the coming fuel cell cars in 1996, and they were less than a decade from production then, but they never came.

Toyota, the builder of some of the best cars ever made, has spent decades and billions trying to make fuel cells work for cars. If a company with the engineering excellence of Toyota is struggling for so long...

BEVs are not on the road because they are better than fuel cells. If fuel cells could be practically made, they would beat BEVs in every aspect. Range, refuelling, environmental impact

But they don't.

BEVs are not better than fuel cells but they actually work for cars.

[–] Hypx@kbin.social 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

BEVs are over 100 years old. In fact, they're older than ICE cars. No one seems to notice that this is the longest development process of any technology in the industry.

Meanwhile, fuel cells are just coming into their own. Most of your arguments are just totally outdated and stuck in the past. You seem oblivious to the fact that FCEVs already exist and are being sold to the public right now. They're already a developed technology, just one that hasn't become popular yet. It is likely dismissing solar and wind energy just as they were taking off. It is just being closed-minded and short-sighted to say these things.

[–] drdabbles@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (13 children)

Meanwhile, fuel cells are just coming into their own.

Fuel cells were invented in 1839. What are you talking about? Fuel cells are also widely used in backup generation, and on-site power generation for large consumers of electricity. I've even visited an EV charging station powered by natural gas fuel cells.

load more comments (13 replies)

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] garrettw87@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I’m definitely no battery engineer, so correct me if I’m wrong, but… wouldn’t a 100-mile-range battery pack have a shorter life span than a 200-mile pack under the same usage since its charge/discharge cycles would be deeper in terms of %, and possibly more frequent because of the reduced range?

[–] tokyorock@beehaw.org 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Yes, this is kind of true. But how you use the battery is also important. If you frequently DC fast charge your pack, it will wear out significantly faster than using Level 1 (120V AC) or Level 2 (240V AC) charging. This is because DCFC pushes the boundaries of how much current the battery can safely take in order to reduce the amount of time it takes to charge the car. It's a balancing act between customer acceptability and limiting battery degradation.

[–] yip-bonk@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago

Slate froze the screen because I use an ad blocker. Oh well. Buh bye slate.

Technology